ThatDarnMKS wrote:
I got myself a region free player last August so it's more the price that sways me. I have the first two Fly movies and the remake and it's sequel. I don't have the Curse of the Fly and I'd have to buy a DVD set that's far overpriced so it's tempting. I'll add it to my watch list and see if it ever dips. Thanks for the heads up!

I'm now faced with the collector's dillemma: do I file this with my Cronenbergs, or my V Price films? I'm embarrassed to admit how much time I've spent wrestling with this decision.

Captain Terror wrote:
I'm now faced with the collector's dillemma: do I file this with my Cronenbergs, or my V Price films? I'm embarrassed to admit how much time I've spent wrestling with this decision.

Rearrange your collection so your Price and your Cronenbergs are next to each other and have this movie bridge the gap.

Mute Witness is made by someone who obviously studied Hitchcock, De Palma and Argento quite carefully, but rather than feeling like pastiche, it takes that mixture of playfulness and tension and makes it work within the confines of its material. The mute heroine and Russian dialogue means that a lot of it works like a silent film (unless you speak Russian, I guess), which is smart because the visual storytelling here is very strong. Highly recommended, and definitely better than The Card Player, although Liam Cunningham fans may be disappointed.

Rock wrote:Mute Witness is made by someone who obviously studied Hitchcock, De Palma and Argento quite carefully, but rather than feeling like pastiche, it takes that mixture of playfulness and tension and makes it work within the confines of its material. The mute heroine and Russian dialogue means that a lot of it works like a silent film (unless you speak Russian, I guess), which is smart because the visual storytelling here is very strong. Highly recommended, and definitely better than The Card Player, although Liam Cunningham fans may be disappointed.

I watched Mute Witness a long time ago, and most of my memory of it has faded. I remember liking the first half a lot more than the second half, despite not remembering the plot specifics.

The second half is more conventional and plot-heavy, whereas the first half is mostly one extended scene that the movie squeezes as much tension out of as possible. The first half is definitely stronger, but there's still good stuff in the second half.

I'm shamelessly cross-posting this from Thief's thread--mostly because I have a question about Cure.

I watched this movie about 10 years ago on a pretty cruddy, gritty VHS copy and found it confusing and murky looking. Having over the years read praise for it, it seemed like a good opportunity to revisit the film.

Okay--this time I got it.

The premise of the film is that a string of murders have taken place, all with a similar MO but different killers. In each case, there is no apparent motive for the killings and the only connection between them is the presence of a mysterious young amnesiac named Mamiya. Takabe, the lead detective, works to stop the murders while at the same time dealing with the stress of having a wife who is mentally deteriorating.

Something I really connected with this time around was the way that the imagery overlapped and echoed what came before it. For example, in one sequence a distraught man who has committed a murder throws himself out of a window. The next time that we see Mamiya, he jumps from a building. Later, a murder victim lies in a slowly spreading pool of blood. Not long after we see a slowly spreading pool of water in much the same shape.

The movie holds many cards close to its chest. Does Mamiya actually have a memory problem, or is it all an act? Is he genuinely psychic (or some variation of that), or is he just a keen observer of other people? Is Mamiya's effect on others intentional, or something out of his control?

The movie does an excellent job of revealing information at a pace just slow enough to keep you guessing. With the first murder we see only the aftermath. With the second, we see the initial phases of Mamiya's influence. And as the film goes on we see more and more of this progression.

My only complaint (and one that I remember from my first viewing) is that the conclusion is far too abrupt and feels rushed. There is one shot that I frankly do not understand (and on my first viewing I chalked up to the poor copy of the VHS). For those who have seen the movie:

At the very end we see

Takabe's wife dead in a wheelchair. But the chair is moving on its own down the hallway? And the nurse who sees this has like no reaction? So how was the chair moving?

Takoma1 wrote:The movie holds many cards close to its chest. Does Mamiya actually have a memory problem, or is it all an act? Is he genuinely psychic (or some variation of that), or is he just a keen observer of other people? Is Mamiya's effect on others intentional, or something out of his control?

The key to the character is his

study of Mesmer, or his paper called something llike "The Psychological Effects of Animal Magnetism". Mamiya doesn't have memory issues, this is part of an act which sympathizes a susceptible state in those he interacts with, easing his ability to incept hypnotic suggestion. Mamiya is very much in control of this technique, and the ending strongly suggests that the technique has attained a viral life of its own at the end, unconsciously transmitted through Takabe to the waitress.

Takoma1 wrote:At the very end we see

Takabe's wife dead in a wheelchair. But the chair is moving on its own down the hallway? And the nurse who sees this has like no reaction? So how was the chair moving?

I do not understand--halp!!!

I can't help with explaining the significance of this scene, but it is one of the film's most disturbing and powerful.

Jinnistan wrote:
The key to the character is his study of Mesmer, or his paper called something llike "The Psychological Effects of Animal Magnetism".

Mamiya doesn't have memory issues, this is part of an act which sympathizes a susceptible state in those he interacts with, easing his ability to incept hypnotic suggestion. Mamiya is very much in control of this technique, and the ending strongly suggests that the technique has attained a viral life of its own at the end, unconsciously transmitted through Takabe to the waitress.

Oh, I know that

he doesn't actually have memory issues. But the movie holds on to that reveal until well into the film. Even in the scene where Takabe shows Mamiya the photo of himself and Mamiya seems genuinely surprised to find out that the man in the picture is actually him. Mamiya is incredibly convincing and it creates a nice tension because you don't know if this guy is unwillingly some sort of murder Typhoid Mary, or just really great at manipulation.

I like that the movie doesn't tip its hand too soon. In my review above I was posing those questions as what you experience in the first half of the film.

I understand the shot of

the wife in the wheelchair. Takabe has killed her (or induced someone to kill her?). I just literally don't understand the mechanics of the scene. How is she rolling down the hallway on her own? Why doesn't the nurse react? Why is that shot so short?

And on another note: last night and this morning I watched The Haunted Strangler. While the plot itself goes to some pretty far-fetched places, I really liked a lot about it.

To begin with, I like that the main character is crusading against the injustice of the court system. He is trying to effect a change whereby all people will have access to legal defense, no matter their station. Throughout the entire movie, there is a strong push on the idea of classism. When it is revealed late in the movie that

it is a wealthy person doing the killing, characters repeatedly say it couldn't be him because he is "a gentleman". The killer himself cannot get anyone to believe he committed such a crime because the people around him refuse to believe that a "gentleman" would do such a thing. It made me think of Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion, where the whole system is so rigged to protect the wealthy that even if a rich person wants to confess they are not allowed to.

I also liked that the movie find a nice balance with the characters of the dancing girls (also strongly implied to be prostitutes) around whom the killings are centered. The women are shown to value money and shamelessly angle for expensive gifts from their male admirers. But they are also funny ("Come zip me up! I'm getting too fat!") and honest. In one scene, a male customer puts his hands on one of the girls and even when she physically pushes him away he grabs her by the neck (very evocative in a movie about a strangler) and pulls her in for a kiss. The women aren't shown as innocent saints, but the movie also makes it very clear just how dangerous and precarious their work is.

Boris Karloff is a strong lead for the film playing a man who is driven by strong moral imperative to seek out justice, even as his own emotional issues become intertwined in the case.

The plotting does get very far fetched in the last act, but it's a short film that moves along briskly. I enjoyed it quite a bit!

the wife in the wheelchair. Takabe has killed her (or induced someone to kill her?). I just literally don't understand the mechanics of the scene. How is she rolling down the hallway on her own? Why doesn't the nurse react? Why is that shot so short?

That's funny, because I didn't think that

she was dead. Takabe fantasized about her death, but I thought she had been committed to the hospital. Having succumbed to dementia, she would then be finally encompassed by the unconscious - her shadow self, in Zen terms - and destined to inhabit the same twilight consciousness which Mamiya had been expert in manipulating. Given the horrific tone we've seen this unconscious state portrayed, we're left to imagine the horror of being perpetually sunk in it.

she was dead. Takabe fantasized about her death, but I thought she had been committed to the hospital. Having succumbed to dementia, she would then be finally encompassed by the unconscious - her shadow self, in Zen terms - and destined to inhabit the same twilight consciousness which Mamiya had been expert in manipulating. Given the horrific tone we've seen this unconscious state portrayed, we're left to imagine the horror of being perpetually sunk in it.

Here's the sequence of events that leads me to believe what I wrote above:

First,

the wife is committed to the asylum. Right before she is admitted, there is the scene where she leaves out a dinner for him, but she has not cooked the steak and it is just a raw piece of meat. He throws the steak against the wall in anger.

Then, after she is committed, there is a scene of Takabe having dinner in the restaurant. He has ordered a steak, but cannot bring himself to eat it.

After he kills Mamiya (and listens to the weird phonograph), it cuts to the hospital where we get the quick shot of the wife dead in the wheelchair.

And from the dead wife there is a hard cut to Takabe having finished a meal in the same seat, with a clean plate and a steak knife.

To me, this implied that he killed the wife and is now "free". This is in sharp contrast to the doctor who killed himself rather than kill someone else.

Rock wrote:Mute Witness is made by someone who obviously studied Hitchcock, De Palma and Argento quite carefully, but rather than feeling like pastiche, it takes that mixture of playfulness and tension and makes it work within the confines of its material. The mute heroine and Russian dialogue means that a lot of it works like a silent film (unless you speak Russian, I guess), which is smart because the visual storytelling here is very strong. Highly recommended, and definitely better than The Card Player, although Liam Cunningham fans may be disappointed.

I had to Google this title. It turns out that I did see it and although I get some loose connection to Argento and the first half had a few thrills, I found the movie wanting.

This definitely peaks my interest a bit, it's also currenlty at 100% on RT. I'm still concerned on a personal level of how much I can suspend my disbelief of everyone being as quiet as they need to to survive, particularly with kids in the film, but with reviews like this I will likely go see it and give it a chance to answer my concerns.

daakmore wrote:
This definitely peaks my interest a bit, it's also currenlty at 100% on RT. I'm still concerned on a personal level of how much I can suspend my disbelief of everyone being as quiet as they need to to survive, particularly with kids in the film, but with reviews like this I will likely go see it and give it a chance to answer my concerns.

Unfortunately for Mr. Krasinski, I think that article has convinced me to not see it in theaters, as it sounds like the sort of thing that can be ruined by the wrong crowd. To be fair, it also sounds like fun with the right crowd, but I'm not sure I'm willing to chance it. This is feeling more like a "turn the lights off and crank the headphones" kind of a deal for me.

I realize very few people are watching Christmas-themed horror films right now, but has anyone seen Better Watch Out? (aka Safe Neighborhood)
I can't talk about why I hate it so much without spoiling major plot points. I need to vent.

Captain Terror wrote:I realize very few people are watching Christmas-themed horror films right now, but has anyone seen Better Watch Out? (aka Safe Neighborhood)
I can't talk about why I hate it so much without spoiling major plot points. I need to vent.

I almost watched it because I like being horrified by home invasion films, but ultimately decided it didn't look very good.

Takoma1 wrote:Here's the sequence of events that leads me to believe what I wrote above:

First,

the wife is committed to the asylum. Right before she is admitted, there is the scene where she leaves out a dinner for him, but she has not cooked the steak and it is just a raw piece of meat. He throws the steak against the wall in anger.

Then, after she is committed, there is a scene of Takabe having dinner in the restaurant. He has ordered a steak, but cannot bring himself to eat it.

After he kills Mamiya (and listens to the weird phonograph), it cuts to the hospital where we get the quick shot of the wife dead in the wheelchair.

And from the dead wife there is a hard cut to Takabe having finished a meal in the same seat, with a clean plate and a steak knife.

To me, this implied that he killed the wife and is now "free". This is in sharp contrast to the doctor who killed himself rather than kill someone else.

You may be right, and it would be interesting if anyone else has a take on it. My best guess for why the scene was shot in the way it was is still that

the 'x' is more symbolic, and the slow roll, as well as the enveloping shadow, are meant more to show her descent into a permanent darkness. The number of similar symbolic dream scenes that we see, in addition to the logistical difficulty in Takabe committing this murder, can support this interpretation.

A Whisper in the Dark, about a child's imaginary friend who might be a ghost, is a junk horror film, but it's a junk horror film with a Pino Donaggio score, so it's not total junk. I'm probably being a little harsh, as it's not totally devoid of atmosphere and I somewhat liked the ending. But it's weird how everyone seems to accept that the imaginary friend is real from the get go, only to become more uncertain despite mounting evidence to the contrary as the film progresses. And the parents seem totally cool with it well beyond an acceptable point. I don't care how murderous your kid's imaginary friend is, you gotta put your foot down. What's next, he takes up smoking?

Captain Terror wrote:I realize very few people are watching Christmas-themed horror films right now, but has anyone seen Better Watch Out? (aka Safe Neighborhood)
I can't talk about why I hate it so much without spoiling major plot points. I need to vent.

The Premonition is a pretty inventive 1976 horror film, or more precisely a psychological thriller (as these two genres are frequently blurred) about a psychic mother of her foster daughter who has visions of the girl's psychotic biological parents returning to kidnap the child. Writer-director Robert Schnitzer hasn't worked too much, most known for the terrible early Sly Stallone role in No Place to Hide. But going off this one film, he seemed to have a good sense of style, combining creepy images, surreal montages and a constant sense of eerie dissociation. Plus, as the film's obvious highlight, is the cult-fave character actor Richard Lynch playing a psychopathic mime.

(shown here becoming the bloodlusty fury of the mind's knife)

Solid seven, folks.

(Also, for yucks, the actress Sharon Farrell, who plays the psychic foster mother, was once married to none other than Andrew Prine. I wonder, how could an assless sack like Andrew Prine get so lucky, and I read according to Wiki: "They later divorced reportedly after only living together for one month and ten days." Haha. Get out of there, girl.)

OK, I'm glad you've already seen it because I was actually going to suggest that you might like it and I was afraid you'd read my spoiler and have it ruined. The movie is certainly not poorly made and I can imagine the humor would appeal to some. (I thought of you because you liked Knock Knock more than I.) And I think the premise is novel enough. I think the film succeeds in what it was trying to do, my problem is that I hate what it was trying to do. What I was hoping for was to commiserate with someone else

that hated that piece of $&^% kid as much as I did. That little snot-nosed %&*& is the most insufferable little ^%$^# I've ever had to spend an hour and change with. After spending that much time with this little effer, I was hoping for payoff in the form of severe violence to his smug little face, but no. I realize this is not coming across as scholarly discourse, but I am not a fan of films that attempt to paint its killer as an awesome badass. I can kind of get on board if he's murdering child molesters or something, but if the victims are just innocent people, the humor is too mean-spirited for me. Like I acknowledge that it's not meant to be taken seriously and it's my problem for being put off, but it is what it is. A final catharisis at the end, watching him get his ass handed to him, would have made everything worthwhile. The babysitter's middle finger at the end kind of softened it for me, knowing that he's going to be punished, but then the mid-credits thing happens and got me pissed off again! I'm also annoyed that the director would probably be thrilled to know that I'm annoyed. Screw this guy!

Again, none of that is a critique of the film-making, but rather the attitude behind it. Also, don't take any of that too seriously. I'm just ranting.

Takoma1 wrote:
I almost watched it because I like being horrified by home invasion films, but ultimately decided it didn't look very good.

The entire premise of the film is based on a pet peeve that you've mentioned in the past, (warning: Major spoiler---)

Captain Terror wrote:
OK, I'm glad you've already seen it because I was actually going to suggest that you might like it and I was afraid you'd read my spoiler and have it ruined. The movie is certainly not poorly made and I can imagine the humor would appeal to some. (I thought of you because you liked Knock Knock more than I.) And I think the premise is novel enough. I think the film succeeds in what it was trying to do, my problem is that I hate what it was trying to do. What I was hoping for was to commiserate with someone else

that hated that piece of $&^% kid as much as I did. That little snot-nosed %&*& is the most insufferable little ^%$^# I've ever had to spend an hour and change with. After spending that much time with this little effer, I was hoping for payoff in the form of severe violence to his smug little face, but no. I realize this is not coming across as scholarly discourse, but I am not a fan of films that attempt to paint its killer as an awesome badass. I can kind of get on board if he's murdering child molesters or something, but if the victims are just innocent people, the humor is too mean-spirited for me. Like I acknowledge that it's not meant to be taken seriously and it's my problem for being put off, but it is what it is. A final catharisis at the end, watching him get his ass handed to him, would have made everything worthwhile. The babysitter's middle finger at the end kind of softened it for me, knowing that he's going to be punished, but then the mid-credits thing happens and got me pissed off again! I'm also annoyed that the director would probably be thrilled to know that I'm annoyed. Screw this guy!

Again, none of that is a critique of the film-making, but rather the attitude behind it. Also, don't take any of that too seriously. I'm just ranting.

The entire premise of the film is based on a pet peeve that you've mentioned in the past, (warning: Major spoiler---)

that of "kids who kill just because",

so maybe watch it sometime and join me in this sweet, sweet hatred.

I thought a lot of what you described was how you were supposed to feel towards that character. However, I don't think that...

Physical violence towards him was necessary. It's a horror film and the perpetrators getting their comeuppance, while often gratifying, betrays the horror of the situation just as often as it fits and often compromises any attempt at a moral that the film is trying. The kid is basically toxic masculinity personified. I disagree that he killed "just to kill." He killed because he was utterly contemptuous of an older girls ability to reject him despite his insane ego. Everything else feeds off that and I think it's a solid motivation for such a thing. I don't see him every being a "badass" though. He's detestable because, while he is very intelligent, is clearly such a little shit.

I also thought the general conceit of inverting Home Alone was fairly clever.

It's hardly a perfect film and it plays it's one note far too long but I got a similar low expectation enjoyment out of it that I'd gotten to a larger degree with the Babysitter.

That said, I also readily defend Knock, Knock so it may just be my taste that's in question.I think Tak might enjoy the aforementioned subversion and look at toxic masculinity but I think it would be a very cautious recommendation.

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
I thought a lot of what you described was how you were supposed to feel towards that character.

I agree with just about everything you said except for that.

Rather than a condemnation of the misogynist little fart, it seemed to me that I was supposed to consider him some sort of rascally Ferris Bueller-type, just more evil. I think the movie thinks he's cute and wanted me to agree,

It's been a while since I've posted in here, but I finally got around to Train to Busan not too long ago. Overall, I thought it was a unique take on the genre with several great action scenes. It's definitely worth all the hype it received on RT.

Captain Terror wrote:
I agree with just about everything you said except for that.

Rather than a condemnation of the misogynist little fart, it seemed to me that I was supposed to consider him some sort of rascally Ferris Bueller-type, just more evil. I think the movie thinks he's cute and wanted me to agree,

which is why I got a burr under my saddle, so to speak.

Hmmm...

I think you're definitely supposed to see a Ferris/Kevin McCallister "scamp" quality, but that the film is trying to satirize that archetype by making the inherently sociopathy of those characters full blown to the point of murder. I think that aspect works well for anyone that finds Ferris or Kevin unintentionally creepy or off putting, like I do.

Popcorn Reviews wrote:It's been a while since I've posted in here, but I finally got around to Train to Busan not too long ago. Overall, I thought it was a unique take on the genre with several great action scenes. It's definitely worth all the hype it received on RT.

8/10

It definitely was worth seeing. Some pretty good WTF moments blended in with some that get you in the feels.

Anyone here seen Annihilation yet, I got a chance to finally see it last weekend and was very impressed. It was unsettling in the best way possible and despite coming from a different inspiration it was way more lovecraftian in tone and mood than most actual Lovecraft adaptations or inspired works.

daakmore wrote:Anyone here seen Annihilation yet, I got a chance to finally see it last weekend and was very impressed. It was unsettling in the best way possible and despite coming from a different inspiration it was way more lovecraftian in tone and mood than most actual Lovecraft adaptations or inspired works.

Also that bear is just fucked up, again in the best way possible.

Yeah, some serious "The Colour Out of Space" vibes, especially in the final stretch.

NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.

daakmore wrote:Anyone here seen Annihilation yet, I got a chance to finally see it last weekend and was very impressed. It was unsettling in the best way possible and despite coming from a different inspiration it was way more lovecraftian in tone and mood than most actual Lovecraft adaptations or inspired works.

Also that bear is just fucked up, again in the best way possible.

I liked it but it's strange to me that it hasn't gotten the Alien Covenant hate for dumb scientists that enter a place without any contamination suits or in film reason to not wear one. They also make a bunch of dumb choices. The strength of the film far out weigh the weaknesses but it's weird how often this film has been called "smart" and "without cliche."

Great atmosphere and ideas though. I liked how pretty most of the horror is.

ThatDarnMKS wrote:I liked it but it's strange to me that it hasn't gotten the Alien Covenant hate for dumb scientists that enter a place without any contamination suits or in film reason to not wear one.

Yeah, people are really eager to unpack its theming/metaphors, which is totally fair, the film's thick with that, but you're right about no contamination suits...

Did we also discuss the "better put guard out on the ground, in a shack, far away from the rest of us, with a lantern." I feel like we did. They're also really incurious about their three-four day loss at the beginning. "Huh, that's weird. Oh well." And there are also some bizarre clunkers in the dialogue, especially surrounding the affair. I swear to God, at one point the guy says, "We're having an affair."

NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.

DaMU wrote:
Yeah, people are really eager to unpack its theming/metaphors, which is totally fair, the film's thick with that, but you're right about no contamination suits...

Did we also discuss the "better put guard out on the ground, in a shack, far away from the rest of us, with a lantern." I feel like we did. They're also really incurious about their three-four day loss at the beginning. "Huh, that's weird. Oh well." And there are also some bizarre clunkers in the dialogue, especially surrounding the affair. I swear to God, at one point the guy says, "We're having an affair."

We did indeed. The...

Multi-day loss really bugs me because it opens up for some really easy excuse making for the lack of suits. "why the hell would we take off our contamination suits?!?!" The affair should have been purely told through visuals. Same with any of the flashbacks, really.

It's funny because I think Annihilation is a better film than Alien Covenant (Prometheus can still fuck off), but it's just curious how one gets a pass for it's themes and the other didn't. I actually found both to be similar experiences where I feel the themes, visuals and intense sequences saved both from their sloppy, convenient plotting and slapdash characterizations.

DaMU wrote:Yeah, some serious "The Colour Out of Space" vibes, especially in the final stretch.

That was definitely the vibe I was getting also, which I suppose helps me enjoy the film as that is my favorite Lovecraft story.

The film definitely had some of the "questionable" decisions that these films are prone to but as odd as it sounds the fact they they partially just ignored even trying to explain them helped. Sure they don't were any suits, but at least they don't start out wearing them and then take them off for no good reason. It helps me assume that they did some test that determined, even if just on the other side of the shimmer, that said yep environment is normal before the events we get to see. It also may just boil down to people liking the general tone and theme of this more which in general allows one to overlook flaws that they point out with glee in other films that for whatever reason rub them the wrong way early into it and therefore put them on the lookout for such things.

daakmore wrote:
That was definitely the vibe I was getting also, which I suppose helps me enjoy the film as that is my favorite Lovecraft story.

The film definitely had some of the "questionable" decisions that these films are prone to but as odd as it sounds the fact they they partially just ignored even trying to explain them helped. Sure they don't were any suits, but at least they don't start out wearing them and then take them off for no good reason. It helps me assume that they did some test that determined, even if just on the other side of the shimmer, that said yep environment is normal before the events we get to see. It also may just boil down to people liking the general tone and theme of this more which in general allows one to overlook flaws that they point out with glee in other films that for whatever reason rub them the wrong way early into it and therefore put them on the lookout for such things.

That head canon excuse for the suits is undermined by the Benedict Wong interrogation structure. If it was wholly absent, it would truly be in AC territory and I'm not sure that it would be better but it's damning that they didn't do it in the same movie.

I think it's because AC is a franchise film following up a movie that bungled everything rather than a judgement of the film on it's own merits.

Popcorn Reviews wrote:It's been a while since I've posted in here, but I finally got around to Train to Busan not too long ago. Overall, I thought it was a unique take on the genre with several great action scenes. It's definitely worth all the hype it received on RT.

8/10

I was a bit underwhelmed by it. I liked it, but did not love it. Something about the balance between action and melodrama just felt off and without going into too much detail, there were character I wish had survived longer.

Takoma1 wrote:
I was a bit underwhelmed by it. I liked it, but did not love it. Something about the balance between action and melodrama just felt off and without going into too much detail, there were character I wish had survived longer.

What felt off to you about the balance between action and melodrama? The only character I thought died off too soon was

Sang-hwa

. However, I felt like there were still a number of other likable characters who survived for quite a long time in the film, so I wasn't too bothered by his death.

Popcorn Reviews wrote:What felt off to you about the balance between action and melodrama?

I just felt like the dynamics were way too predictable (like the rich jerk who wants to live at the expense of others). It wasn't done poorly, but there was nothing new or fresh about how it was presented. Literally nothing in the movie surprised me, which robbed it of a certain degree of suspense. It was immediately apparent who was going to survive and who wasn't. I also didn't find the action particularly memorable. I didn't find any of it particularly memorable. To me, there was no "Hell yeah!!!" moment in that film. After all the praise it had received (here and elsewhere) I was just expecting more.

The only character I thought died off too soon was

Sang-hwa

. However, I felt like there were still a number of other likable characters who survived for quite a long time in the film, so I wasn't too bothered by his death.

Was that the

young man, the athlete?

That's who I am referring to.

Again, I didn't hate it or anything. But I was expecting a 9/10 and got a 7/10 instead. A good barometer for me is that I have zero desire to revisit it, nor do I find myself recommending it to others.

Takoma1 wrote:
I just felt like the dynamics were way too predictable (like the rich jerk who wants to live at the expense of others). It wasn't done poorly, but there was nothing new or fresh about how it was presented. Literally nothing in the movie surprised me, which robbed it of a certain degree of suspense. It was immediately apparent who was going to survive and who wasn't. I also didn't find the action particularly memorable. I didn't find any of it particularly memorable. To me, there was no "Hell yeah!!!" moment in that film. After all the praise it had received (here and elsewhere) I was just expecting more.

Was that the

young man, the athlete?

That's who I am referring to.

Again, I didn't hate it or anything. But I was expecting a 9/10 and got a 7/10 instead. A good barometer for me is that I have zero desire to revisit it, nor do I find myself recommending it to others.

You made some good points, but I wasn't bothered by what you said. I do admit that I felt a couple characters would die off from the start (the wrestler, the homeless man, and at least one of the elderly ladies). However, as the movie continued on, I felt more confident that they would live. For instance, the wrestler seemed like a prick at first, but he proved to be a nice and helpful guy later in the film. I also thought the homeless man would die in the scene where several of them were trying to sneak past the zombies on top of the luggage compartments. Since he didn't die in that scene though, I became confident that he'd live. I'd say my favorite action scenes included the numerous scenes where the characters snuck past the zombies in the dark and the scene near the end where a few of them were pinned under a crashed train. I felt like these scenes were standouts due to their suspense and creativity, so I liked them quite a bit.

Sang-hwa was the wrestler. I felt like the movie killed him off just as he was starting to become likable. I would've liked to see him in some more scenes. As for the athlete, I had a greater issue with the way he died more than the part of the film he died at as it felt slightly anti-climatic.

ThatDarnMKS wrote: I think that aspect works well for anyone that finds Ferris or Kevin unintentionally creepy or off putting, like I do.

Ha ha, that's part of my problem actually. Even when I was a teenager I thought Ferris was an A-hole.

So I listened to a lengthy interview with Better Watch Out's director and most of what he said supports your take on the movie, but I'll be damned if he got any of it across to me. Maybe I'm just thick.
One possible problem might be that I watched his other film, Undocumented, immediately before BWO. (Literally immediately, the same night.) That one was straight-up torture porn, very nasty and bleak. Again, not poorly-made, just not my thing. So I no doubt went into BWO thinking I was in for more of the same.

The bit in Busan where the train's trailing hundreds of zombies was neato.

I wasn't crazy on the flick, so the internet love for it has me a bit flummoxed, but that's sorta like The Witch or Blade Runner 2, where it's like, "This is the flick everyone's going gaga for? Huh. Well, at least it's good."

NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.

DaMU wrote:The bit in Busan where the train's trailing hundreds of zombies was neato.

I wasn't crazy on the flick, so the internet love for it has me a bit flummoxed, but that's sorta like The Witch or Blade Runner 2, where it's like, "This is the flick everyone's going gaga for? Huh. Well, at least it's good."

But at least The Witch had that utterly original, disturbing, and visually spectacular opening. Nothing in Train to Busan/b] quite hit that "whoa!" moment for me. Again--it wasn't bad, just not the fabulous film I'd been expecting after all the praise.

Takoma1 wrote:
But at least The Witch had that utterly original, disturbing, and visually spectacular opening. Nothing in Train to Busan/b] quite hit that "whoa!" moment for me. Again--it wasn't bad, just not the fabulous film I'd been expecting after all the praise.

There were several moments in The Witch which blew me away, especially this scene (spoilers). It was quite an eerie film.

I still think Train to Busan is really good, but I can understand why someone wouldn't think so. Regardless, 28 Days Later is still my pick for best zombie film of all time.